1st - 9th,
12th - 15th, CD: ...the freewillness of the
myriads of the children of Deity...

10th, 11th:
...the free-willness of the myriads of the children of Deity...

Discussion:

Free-willness is found
at four other locations in the text and all in instances refers to an attribute
or characteristic of a being or beings. Freewill and free will
each occur numerous times—the former as an adjective (modifying such words
as choice, action, or personality), while the two-word form
is used when free modifies will itself (i.e. when will
is under discussion). In light of these consistent usages, conforming this
variant is appropriate as the original was probably the result of a dropped
hyphen.

Conclusion:

There was a dropped keystroke
(T1 error) in the 1955 text.

) 118:7.5; p.1301
¶2 Change type: S2/S6

1st - 6th:
Only as a creature becomes God identified...

7th - 15th,
CD: Only as a creature becomes God-identified...

Discussion:

Although God identified
here, and its only related form, God identification (at 111:1.6) are
both open (separate words) in the 1955 text, the guidelines within the Chicago
Manual provide a good argument for both being hyphenated. In each case
a single concept is referred to, and the missing hyphen causes the unsuspecting
reader to stumble (albeit briefly) by suggesting here, “...as a creature becomes
God...” and at 111:1.6, “...the exquisite melodies of God...”

Further, at the present location,
the comparison with God-unidentified in the prior sentence is being
made.

Conclusion:

The original text was not
in error, but the hyphenated form would have been better.

) 119:7.6; p.1317
¶2 Change type: M2

1st:
These men of God visited the newborn child in the manger.

2nd - 15th,
CD:These men of God visited the newborn child.

Discussion:

Presumably, this change was
made because the original seems to be inconsistent with the narrative of Jesus’
birth in 122:8, which states that three wise men from the east visited Jesus
when he was almost three weeks old—about the time the family left the inn
and over two weeks after they had moved out of the stable.

However, it is certainly
possible that Joseph and Mary might have taken the manger with them up to
the room in the inn in order to continue to have a cradle for Jesus. The need
for a cradle would have been no less in the room than in the stable, and if
the manger was portable, as small feed-boxes often are, moving it along with
the family seems quite reasonable.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text required no
“correction.”

) 121:7.3; p.1340
¶1 Change type: S1

1st - 10th:
...one who did not hestitate to clash with dogmas...

11th - 15th,
CD: ...one who did not hesitate to clash with dogmas...

Discussion:

See note at 79:3.5.

Conclusion:

There was an extra keystroke
(T2 error) in the 1955 text.

) 123:2.3; p.1357
¶7 Change type: S1

1st:
...one month before his fifth birthday anniversay...

2nd - 15th.
CD:...one month before his fifth birthday anniversary...

Discussion:

See note at 79:3.5.

Conclusion:

There was a dropped keystroke
(T1 error) in the 1955 text.

) 123:5.12; p.1363
¶5 Change type: M3

1st:
Far to the east they could discern the Jordan valley and, far beyond, the
rocky hills of Moab.

2nd - 15th,
CD:Far to the east they could discern the Jordan valley and far beyond
lay the rocky hills of Moab.

Discussion:

As others have suggested,
the March, 1959 letter from Rev. Benjamin Adams may well have provided the
impetus for the change made here. [Rev. Adams: “But the rocky hills of Moab
were not east of Nazareth but east of the Dead Sea.”] Setting aside
(as throughout these notes) a discussion of the nature of the editorial policy
which allowed such changes to be made, an analysis of the 1955 text shows
that there was no need to “correct” it in any case because the author of the
paper does not state that the hills of Moab are east of Nazareth.

The context for this sentence
is the “panoramic view” from atop the Nazareth hill: Jesus and his father
are standing on top of the hill and are moving their gaze from Mt. Carmel
in the northwest around an arc to the north, east, south and west. Mt. Hermon
is to their north, and from springs in its foothills near Dan (northeast of
Nazareth) the Jordan valley extends to the Dead Sea in the south. Thus, as
Jesus and Joseph follow the line of the river valley along the arc of their
survey, as the Jordan approaches the Dead Sea, father and son “discern...far
beyond, the rocky hills of Moab.”

This interpretation is further
supported by the punctuation of the following sentence which does not
read “Also, to the south and the east,...” (suggesting a change in direction
from the last reference), but rather, “Also to the south and the east,...”
which implies that the last referenced location (Moab) was in the same direction.

10th, 11th,
15th: ...on pleasure or business to near-by
Cana, Endor, and Nain.

Discussion:

All other instances of near-by
as an adjective are hyphenated; adverbs are open (near by), and the
closed form, originally found here, is otherwise entirely absent from the
text. Consistent usage would therefore support this change.

As discussed in greater detail
in the note for 162:7.2, bond servant is found in three different forms
in the first edition. The only form found in our primary references is the
open form (bond servant) in Webster’s. Although the hyphenated
version could not be considered incorrect, and at this location it parallels
fear-slave to good effect, database standardization around the open
form would be reasonable.

Conclusion:

Database standardization
could justify this change if consistently implemented.

10th, 11th:
...functioning of a consciousness sorter and associator...

Discussion:

While the meaning of associater
is clear and that variant is found in a reference dating to 1626 in the OED,
it is probably the result of a keystroke error because the common form, associator,
is the unanimous usage elsewhere in the text. [Unlike other archaic English
words occasionally used in The Urantia Book to convey unique meanings
(e.g., inconcussible at 118:3.3), the ancient word-form associater
did not convey a meaning distinct from associator and no such differentiation
is apparent here.]

The original spelling may
have been caused by a typist’s inadvertent repetition of the er pattern
from sorter.

Conclusion:

There was an incorrect keystroke
(T3 error) in the 1955 text.

) 134:7.5; p.1492
¶5 Change type: S4

1st:
...Sychar, Schecham, Samaria, Geba,...

2nd - 15th,
CD:...Sychar, Shechem, Samaria, Geba,...

Discussion:

The standard transliteration
is Shechem. [A similar problem occurred at 186:3.2.]

Conclusion:

An extra keystroke was inserted
(T2) and a wrong keystroke (T3) was made.

) 137:2.9; p.1527
¶3 Change type: C1

1st:
...in the form of the ten commandments and other mottoes...

2nd - 15th,
CD: ...in the form of the Ten Commandments and other mottoes...

Discussion:

See discussion in note for
96:4.4.

Conclusion:

For the reasons cited in
earlier note, the 1955 text probably reflects the original manuscript.

Usage is split between the
two forms in the 1955 text. Though Webster’s supports the closed form,
the OED suggests using the hyphen and it is clear from the history
of usage documented there that both forms have been commonly used. Database
standardization is appropriate here, and this editor suggests that the hyphenated
form be used for clarity’s sake—in its closed form the word may cause the
reader to momentarily stumble over the th at the joining of the words.
(see also 190:3.1)

Conclusion:

The original text was not
in error, but database standardization is appropriate.

This is another case of reasonable
punctuation by the author that hardly stands in need of correction by an editor.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text does not need
correction.

) 162:2.3; p.1791
¶1 Change type: C2

1st - 6th:
By refusing to hear me, you are refusing to receive Him who
sends me.

7th - 15th,
CD: By refusing to hear me, you are refusing to receive him who sends
me.

Discussion:

Capitalization of Him
at this point is correct usage and is required for clarity. (See note for
3:1.12.)

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 162:2.3; p.1791
¶1 Change type: C2

1st - 6th:
You, if you will receive this gospel, shall come to know Him who sent me.

7th - 15th,
CD: You, if you will receive this gospel, shall come to know him who
sent me.

Discussion:

Capitalization of Him
at this point is correct usage and is required for clarity. (See note for
3:1.12.)

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 162:2.4; p.1791
¶2 Change type: P2

1st:
...wonderful than this Jesus of Nazareth has already done?”

2nd - 15th,
CD:...wonderful than this Jesus of Nazareth has already done.”

Discussion:

While it may be true that
the sentence is declarative, the question mark does seem to more acceptably
convey the wondering attitude of the people, and it does not confuse the reader.
In the absence of compelling evidence that an error has been made, any reasonable
punctuation in the 1955 text should be left alone—as the presumed choice of
the author.

Conclusion:

The 1955 punctuation does
not require correction.

) 162:2.7; p.1792
¶1 Change type: C2

1st - 6th:
In just a short time I go to Him who sent me into this world.

7th - 15th,
CD: In just a short time I go to him who sent me into this world.

Discussion:

The original is supported
by the Chicago Manual and by consistent usage in The Urantia Book.
See note for 3:1.12 for full discussion.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 162:5.2; p.1795
¶1 Change type: M1

1st, 2nd:
You only judge by the appearances of the flesh;...

3rd - 15th,
CD:You judge only by the appearances of the flesh;...

Discussion:

While the modified construction
may represent adverbial placement “by the rules,” the original is perfectly
intelligible and conforms with ordinary usage. Regarding the placement of
only, Fowler’s A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926),
among other examples, cites the common, “He only died a week ago,” in which,
technically (as in the subject phrase), the author ought to have located only
after the verb: “He died only a week ago.” Fowler, however, rejects the absolutism
of “orthodoxy” and concludes:

“The advice offered is this: there
is an orthodox position for the adverb, easily determined in case of need;
to choose another position that may spoil or obscure the meaning is bad; but
a change of position that has no such effect except technically is both justified
by historical and colloquial usage and often demanded by rhetorical needs.”

In the 1955 text, this word
is hyphenated and is broken at the hyphen to begin a new line of type, so
it is impossible to determine whether bond-servant or bondservant
was intended. The only form that the type (as set) could not have represented
was bond servant. In the following sentence, bondservant is
found as one word, so it would be a reasonable assumption that the same closed
form was intended here. Both bond servant and bond‑servant
are found once elsewhere in the Urantia papers (69:5.8 and 130:6.3, respectively).
In the 10th and 11th Urantia Foundation printings, both
occurrences in the present paragraph were separated into two words, as was
the 130:6.3 instance, thus standardizing all four to the two-word format.
Database standardization would be reasonable for this word, but the electronic
editions and the printed texts subsequent to the 11th have diverged
(as noted).

Conclusion:

Database standardization,
if consistently applied, would be reasonable, though the original text was
not in error.

) 162:7.2; p.1796
¶4 Change type: S2

1st - 9th,
12th - 15th, CD: And you know that the bondservant
is not likely...

10th, 11th
And you know that the bond servant is not likely...

Discussion:

No line break is found here
in any edition. See previous note for more information.

Conclusion:

Database standardization,
if consistently applied, would be reasonable, though the original text was
not in error.

) 164:5.6; p.1816
¶3 Change type: P2

1st - 10th,
12th - 15th, CD:With the two apostles and Josiah
the Master went back to Pella.

11th:
With the two apostles and Josiah, the Master went back to Pella.

Discussion:

A comma could assist the
reader in phrasing the sentence, but it is hardly necessary.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text does not require
correction.

) 165:0.3; p.1817
¶3 Change type: S4

1st:
...from these regions during the times of Judas Maccabeus.

2nd - 15th,
CD:...from these regions during the times of Judas Maccabee.

Discussion:

Although Maccabeus
is a more accurate transliteration of the Greek, Maccabee is very common
in English works and is used in all other occurrences of the word in the Urantia
papers. Database standardization is appropriate reasonable here.

Conclusion:

Database standardization
is reasonable, though the original text was not in error.

) 166:3.4; p.1829
¶1 Change type: P2

1st, 2nd:
Lord open to us; we would also be great in the kingdom.

3rd - 15th,
CD:Lord, open to us; we would also be great in the kingdom.

Discussion:

In the original format, Lord
was the last word in the line, making a dropped comma not unlikely. It is
possible that the comma was simply viewed as unnecessary within such a short
phrase, and it should also be noted that while the use of the comma in direct
address is regarded as standard, the Chicago Manual was silent on the
matter until its 12th edition (1969).

Conclusion:

It cannot be determined whether
an error in typesetting was made here, but the end-of-line location tips the
balance in favor of making the change adopted in the 3rd printing.

) 167:4.3; p.1837
¶2 Change type: P2

1st - 10th,
12th - 15th, CD:...so that on the second, or
even the third, day such a one...

11th:
...so that on the second, or even the third day such a one...

Discussion:

Although the second comma
seems clumsy, it is required to enclose the parenthetical phrase or even
the third.

The original version, Lazarus’s,
is correct. Although the missing final s in the 3rd through
9th printings might have originally been due to a database conversion
error, it is not known why the incorrect form was again adopted for the softcover
and electronic editions.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 168:3.7; p.1847
¶7 Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
...with friends in Bethpage, a hamlet near Bethany.

4th - 15th,
CD: ...with friends in Bethphage, a hamlet near Bethany.

Discussion:

The 1955 text uses Bethpage
in all thirteen occurrences of this word. In the 4th printing,
the original was changed to Bethphage here, and at ten other locations;
the remaining two were changed in the 9th printing. These changes
were presumably made because Bethphage is the spelling found in English
Bibles since the Authorized Version (King James) of 1611. While the
apparent misspelling in The Urantia Book is not theologically or historically
significant, it seems unlikely to the present editor that so many identical
typographical errors could have occurred, so the spelling Bethpage
must have been used in the original manuscript.

Whenever names are translated
from one language into another (based on the name’s sound rather than its
meaning), different transliterations are often chosen by different translators
because it can be difficult to transfer sounds precisely from one language
to another. Some modern examples would be Peking/Beijing, Cambodia/Kampuchea
and Ceylon/Sri Lanka. This phenomenon also occurs when translating ancient
names into modern languages: Akenaton/Ikhnaton, Jerome/Hieronymus, Nimrod/Nimrud,
Beth Shean/Beth Sha'an/Beth Shan, Khufu/Chefren, etc.

The Greek form of the word
in question is #02N"(Z.
It is found in only 3 places in the New Testament (Mat. 21:1, Mk 11:1, Lk
19:29). Using standard transliteration principles, it would become Bethphage
in English, and that is how it is found in modern Bibles. However, the usual
rules for transliteration do not always produce the most accurate rendering
of the original, and may be overruled when appropriate. An example closely
related to the present case is the word 5"N"D<"bµ:
if transliterated by the same standard rules, it would become Capharnaum,
but The Urantia Book and English Bibles use Capernaum instead.
Why? 5"N"D<"bµ
is found throughout the New Testament; it is hard to talk about Jesus without
talking about 5"N"D<"bµ.
So it is natural that translators would attend more carefully to accuracy
of transliteration and to ease of vocalization in English. It is this editor’s
belief that that is precisely what the authors of The Urantia Book
did when they chose Bethpage over Bethphage. The former is a
more accurate approximation of the Greek original, is much easier for English
speakers to say, and doesn’t sound like a type of plague.

[As to the origin of the
general error of converting N
into the f sound in English: In Latin, ph was used to replace
the Greek N and was pronounced
properly as an aspirated consonant (as in uphill). However, English
speakers pronounced Greek N and
Latin ph as f because of a mistaken inference from certain Latin
and Greek cognates such as frater/ND"JZD.
This conversion is well-evidenced in common English words such as philosophy
and pharmacy, but it is not accurate, and certainly does not need to
be adopted for an unfamiliar place name like #02N"(Z/Bethpage.]

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 168:5.1; p.1849
¶5 Change type: M2

1st:
...until the day of the crucifixion of Jesus,...

2nd - 15th,
CD:...until the week of the crucifixion of Jesus,...

Discussion:

The change from day
to week was made, because the former is inconsistent with the ensuing
narrative (at 174:0.1, 175:3.1, and 177:5.3) which would place the time of
Lazarus’s flight between Tuesday at midnight (when his death was decreed by
the Sanhedrin) and Wednesday evening (when “certain ones” at the camp “knew
that Lazarus had taken hasty flight from Bethany”)—two days before the crucifixion
of Jesus.

Other than a mistaken pre-publication
(E1) change, this editor does not presently have a theory to explain this
problem with the 1955 text.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text appears to
be inconsistent with itself at this point; the origin of the error is not
known.

This sentence, as structured,
does require lay rather than laid, the former being the past
tense of the intransitive verb to lie; the latter being the past of
the transitive verb to lay. However, it is this editor’s opinion that
the error here is not poor grammar by the author, but a lost word in transcription.
The authors of Part IV of The Urantia Book generally follow the text
of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, with certain
modernizations and corrections as needed. The ASV text of Luke 16:19-21
is as follows:

“Now there was a certain rich man,
and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day:
and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores,
and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table;
yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores.” [emphasis added]

The passage from The Urantia Book
follows the ASV very closely:

“There was a certain rich man named
Dives, who, being clothed in purple and fine linen, lived in mirth and splendor
every day. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who laid at this
rich man's gate, covered with sores and desiring to be fed with the crumbs
which fell from the rich man's table; yes, even the dogs came and licked his
sores.” [emphasis added]

If the ASV narrative
provides the structure for the subject passage, the grammatical problem observed
in the original text was caused by the inadvertent loss of the was
that should have immediately preceded laid.

Another logical support for
this argument is based on the beggar’s inability to fend for himself. If
“even the dogs came and licked his sores,” he surely would have been carried
to the rich man’s gate by others, who would then have laid him there.

Conclusion:

There was a T6 error made
here at some point in the preparation of the text, and “who was laid” became
“who laid.”

) 172:0.2; p.1878 ¶2
Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
...the common folks of Bethany and Bethpage did their best...

4th - 15th,
CD: ...the common folks of Bethany and Bethphage did their best...

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 172:1.2; p.1878 ¶5
Change type: S4

1st - 8th:
...all Bethany and Bethpage joined in celebrating...

9th - 15th,
CD: ...all Bethany and Bethphage joined in celebrating...

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 172:3.6; p.1881 ¶4
Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
...directing them to go over to Bethpage,...

4th - 15th,
CD: ...directing them to go over to Bethphage,...

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 172:3.6; p.1881 ¶4
Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
Go to Bethpage, and when you come...

4th - 15th,
CD: Go to Bethphage, and when you come...

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 172:3.6; p.1881 ¶4
Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
...when the two apostles had gone into Bethpage...

4th - 15th,
CD: ...when the two apostles had gone into Bethphage...

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 172:4.3; p.1883 ¶5
Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
...among their friends in Bethany and Bethpage.

4th - 15th,
CD: ...among their friends in Bethany and Bethphage.

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 172:5.2; p.1884 ¶1
Change type: S5

1st, 2nd:
...some of the twelve whom he knew were armed with swords;...

3rd - 15th,
CD:...some of the twelve who he knew were armed with swords;...

Discussion:

The pronoun is the subject
of the verb were armed, not the object of knew; therefore who
is the correct form (see also 177:5.2). To illustrate:

...some of the twelve
whom he knew Peter had armed...[he knew Peter had armed them]

...some of the twelve who
he knew were armed... [he knew they were armed]

Conclusion:

Either a T2 (extra keystroke)
error, or an E2 (mistakenly “corrected” grammar) error occurred here, causing
whom to appear in the 1955 text. (There is also an identical error
two sentences prior to this which was corrected in the Uversa Press edition.)

) 175:1.20; p.1908 ¶4
Change type: C2

1st - 6th:
...while you plot to destroy Him of whom they spoke.

7th - 15th,
CD: ...while you plot to destroy him of whom they spoke.

Discussion:

Capitalization of Him
at this point is correct usage and is required for clarity. (See note for
3:1.12.)

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 176:4.1; p.1918 ¶4
Change type: P2

1st - 5th:
...his seventh and last bestowal, as a mortal of the realm.

6th - 15th,
CD: ...his seventh and last bestowal as a mortal of the realm.

Discussion:

The comma is required to
give the sentence its correct meaning:

Urantia was the place of Michael’s
seventh and last bestowal, as a mortal of the realm. [the seventh bestowal—the
one in which he was a mortal of the realm ]

Not:

Urantia was the place of Michael’s
seventh and last bestowal as a mortal of the realm. [his seventh bestowal
as a mortal]

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 177:3.7; p.1924 ¶3
Change type: S3

1st:
...why he would be willing to forego the great advantage...

2nd - 15th,
CD:...why he would be willing to forgo the great advantage...

Discussion:

Although forgo is
etymologically preferable, forego has been in use for over 400 years
and leads to no confusion; forego is also found at two other locations
in the text, while forgo is absent altogether. In addition, forego
appears (for the first time for either form) as the preference in the 11th
edition (1949) of the Chicago Manual (§122).

Conclusion:

The usage in the 1955 text
is consistent and reasonable.

) 177:4.9; p.1926 ¶2
Change type: S6

1st, 2nd,11th,13th,14th:
...Judas's betrayal of Jesus was the cowardly act...

The correct form is Judas’s
and it is found that way at all locations in the 1955 text except 139:12.1.
It is not known why the correct form was changed in the first place, or why
it has been changed and changed back again so many times in recent printings.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 177:5.2; p.1927 ¶3
Change type: S5

1st, 2nd:
...still others whom you think love the truth will be scattered,...

3rd - 15th,
CD:...still others who you think love the truth will be scattered,...

Discussion:

This is a situation similar
to that found at 172:5.2. The pronoun concerned is the subject of love,
not the object of think; therefore who is the correct form.
To illustrate:

...others whom you think
Jesus loved... [you think Jesus loved them ]

...others who you
think love the truth... [you think they love the truth]

Conclusion:

Either a T2 (extra keystroke)
error, or an E2 (mistakenly “corrected” grammar) error occurred here, causing
whom to appear in the 1955 text.

) 179:5.9; p.1943 ¶2
Change type: M2

1st:
...he said to the twelve: “And as often as you do this,...

2nd -15th,
CD: ...he said to the apostles: “And as often as you do this,...

Discussion:

There were only eleven apostles
still present for the establishment of the remembrance supper because Judas
had left earlier; so the twelve of the 1955 text was incorrect, and
was changed to apostles to make this sentence consistent with the rest
of the narrative.

The error may have originated
either as an inadvertent pattern error (T5) for either eleven or apostles,
or through an E1 error (the conscious but mistaken “correction” of the original
based on the assumption that an earlier T5 error had occurred).

Of the five occurrences of
lawbreak[er] [-ing] in the text, three are closed and two are hyphenated.
There is no differential in meaning indicated by the two forms, so database
standardization is appropriate. (Note, however, that the electronic texts
do not reflect this standardization.)

Conclusion:

The 1955 text was not in
error, but database standardization, if consistently applied, justifies this
change.

The standard transliteration
is Shechem. [A similar problem occurred at 134:7.5.]

Conclusion:

An extra keystroke was inserted
(T2) in the 1955 text.

) 186:5.5; p.2002 ¶6
Change type: P2

1st:
...throughout the universe of universes, have existed from eternity;...

2nd - 15th,
CD:...throughout the universe of universes have existed from eternity;...

Discussion:

This comma is not appropriate
as found in the 1955 text. Either it was inserted in error (a T2 mistake),
or a second comma earlier in the sentence was inadvertently dropped (a T1
error). In this editor’s view, the latter explanation is more likely; and
the missing comma would have been located immediately following Maker,
which would create an enclosed parenthetical statement. The complete sentence
would read as follows:

“These touching and divinely beautiful
relations between man and his Maker, on this world and on all others throughout
the universe of universes, have existed from eternity; and they are not in
any sense dependent on these periodic bestowal enactments of the Creator Sons
of God, who thus assume the nature and likeness of their created intelligences
as a part of the price which they must pay for the final acquirement of unlimited
sovereignty over their respective local universes.”

Conclusion:

Either a T1 or a T2 error
exists in the 1955 text.

) 189:4.1; p.2025 ¶2
Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
...going to the home of Simon in Bethpage,...

4th - 15th,
CD: ...going to the home of Simon in Bethphage,...

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 190:2.5; p.2032 ¶3
Change type: S4

1st - 8th:
...even while they looked for him at Bethpage,...

9th - 15th,
CD: ...even while they looked for him at Bethphage,...

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 190:3.1; p.2033 ¶1
Change type: S6

1st - 9th,
12th -14th, CD: ...strengthen those who are
fainthearted and fear‑ridden.

10th, 11th,
15th: ...strengthen those who are faint-hearted
and fear‑ridden.

Discussion:

See note for 139:12.12.

Conclusion:

The original text was not
in error, but database standardization is appropriate.

) 191:0.1; p.2037 ¶1
Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
Thomas was brooding over his troubles alone at Bethpage.

4th - 15th,
CD: Thomas was brooding over his troubles alone at Bethphage.

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 191:0.13; p.2039 ¶0
Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
John Mark located Thomas at the home of Simon in Bethpage...

4th - 15th,
CD: John Mark located Thomas at the home of Simon in Bethphage...

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 191:0.13; p.2039 ¶0
Change type: S4

1st - 3rd:
...John went over to Bethpage and brought him back with them.

4th - 15th,
CD: ...John went over to Bethphage and brought him back with them.

Discussion:

See note for 168:3.7.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling was intended
by the authors and needs no revision.

) 192:4.5; p.2051 ¶2
Change type: S6

1st - 9th,
12th - 14th, CD: This was a sad home‑coming
for John Mark.

10th, 11th,
15th: This was a sad homecoming for John
Mark.

Discussion:

The only other instance of
home-coming in the text (at 150:7.3) is broken at the hyphen by the
end of a line, so it could support either spelling. Only the hyphenated form
is found in Webster’s, and the Chicago Manual gives no guidance.
The original should therefore have been left alone.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 195:3.10; p.2074 ¶5
Change type: S4

1st:
Poutaenus taught Clement and then went on to follow Nathaniel...

2nd -15th,
CD: Pantaenus taught Clement and then went on to follow Nathaniel...

Discussion:

The correct spelling of this
name is Pantaenus; Dr. Sadler, in a March 17, 1959 letter to the Reverend
Benjamin Adams of San Francisco, suggested the possible source of the error:

“I think the spelling of the name
of the teacher in Alexandria is undoubtedly an error in transcribing the manuscript
into typewriting. An “an” was undoubtedly transcribed as an “ou”. I remember
when we were sometimes in doubt as to whether a letter was an “n” or a “u”
in the manuscript. Of course, we who were preparing this matter, did not
know the name of this teacher so could have easily made this mistake.”

Conclusion:

Two incorrect letters were
present in the 1955 text. There is evidence to support a T7 (mistaken reading
of the manuscript) error.

) 196:3.29; p.2097 ¶3
Change type: P1

1st:
And the spirit of the Father is in his Son’s sons—mortal men.

2nd - 15th,
CD:And the spirit of the Father is in his Sons’ sons—mortal men